"They" being the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

Thank you for making my point...

How come they are doing so much worse under President Bush?


NOYB wrote:
Bush inherited an economy that saw sizable layoffs and a huge drop in the
stock market in 2000...clearly indicating a shrinking economy.

That's a laugh. The 1990s were the biggest growth in economic history...
the longest sustained business boom in peace time... EVER.

Do you genuinely believe it's all Clinton's fault? If so, do you think
the rest of us are stupid enough to believe it?

How come five years of the wonderful Bush Administration *still* hasn't
restored the economy & the stock market to what it was prior to 2000?

When will you start pointing to all the great accomplishments of
President Bush, instead of blaming others for stuff that he seems to
have screwed up?

... Tax revenues
are a function of GDP...which was not growing at a rate large enough to pay
for the increased spending necessary to support a war that was started in
our backyard.


You mean voodoo economics still doesn't work? That's funny, I thought if
we reduced taxes on those bazillionaires, they'd all go out and order
new yachts or something, and the economy would boom again...

BTW noticed they're lowering interest rates again? They do that when the
economy is booming, right?

DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican
controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil...

...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 OKC bombing
(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines), and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?



Al Qaeda has known contact with FARQ and the IRA. So what? They probably
use each other to network for weapons, same way people come here for help
finding decent boat accessories.

They use each other to network for weapons, and you're response is "so
what?"? I'm glad you're not running this war on terror.


I'm sure that the appropriate government personnel know where to best expend
their efforts, and trying to stop two groups from communicating is probably
not at the top of their list. That would be like ****ing into the wind. For
thousands of years, spies have known ways of passing messages.

Now, *knowing* what they're saying is another story, but that's not what you
were talking about when you mentioned Nichols' theoretical connections with
terrorist groups.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican
controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil...

...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 OKC bombing
(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines), and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?

Don't forget the embassy bombing.....which is US territory.

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,

The perpetrators of which are all behind bars for life, after due
process.


NOYB wrote:
For what? I thought you said there were no terrorist attacks on our soil
under Clinton?



That's not what I said, NOBBY.

Sure it is.

This is what you said:
"That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO terrorist
attacks on US soil"

You clearly said "NO terrorist attacks on US soil". You even capitalized
"NO".



(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines)

Sure, just like Iraq's imaginary WMD's were shipped to Syria.


They *were* shipped to Syria.

Yeah yeah yeah

... The UN weapons inspection group just admitted the other day that
their satellite info showed that the weapons and/or weapons-making
equipment were moved before the war.

Oh the UN says so? Didn't you claim the UN was corrupt and ineffective?

*Was* corrupt...until they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and
began instituting reforms.

First reform: admit that there may have been something to the US claims
that weapons and weapons equipment had been moved before the war.


Please also note that the UN weapons inspectors did *not* say that WMDs
were moved, only that "something which could have been" was moved. Is that
the same thing?

It could very well be the same thing. Depends upon how one interprets it.

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican
controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil...

...except for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 OKC bombing
(Nichols had numerous pre-attack contacts with terrorist elements in the
Philippines), and the 1996 downing of TWA 800.

Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?

Don't forget the embassy bombing.....which is US territory.

I didn't want to confuse him. He does that well enough on his own.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
"They" being the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

Thank you for making my point...

How come they are doing so much worse under President Bush?


NOYB wrote:
Bush inherited an economy that saw sizable layoffs and a huge drop in the
stock market in 2000...clearly indicating a shrinking economy.

That's a laugh. The 1990s were the biggest growth in economic history...
the longest sustained business boom in peace time... EVER.

Year 2000 wasn't the 90's. But it was the final year of Clinton's
presidency.



Do you genuinely believe it's all Clinton's fault?

I believe the irrational exhuberance that existed in the markets *was*
Clinton's (and the media's) fault. We were led to believe that everything
was just rosy, that we had no outside threats to our safety (because they
pursued terrorists as criminals instead of nation-state sponsored), and that
economy wasn't showing signs of slowdown. Of course, the data from 2000 all
came out in the wash in 2001.

If so, do you think the rest of us are stupid enough to believe it?

Yes, I think you're stupid...but that's besides the point.


How come five years of the wonderful Bush Administration *still* hasn't
restored the economy & the stock market to what it was prior to 2000?

The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The stock market
is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate accounting scandals
and irrational growth from the dot-coms and IPO's...and turned to a safer
investment: real estate. Real estate is the new millenium's new stock
market.



When will you start pointing to all the great accomplishments of President
Bush, instead of blaming others for stuff that he seems to have screwed
up?

Besides the short recession that he helped us recover from, and the
democratic elections happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, and even Saudi
Arabia (at least on a local level)?


... Tax revenues are a function of GDP...which was not growing at a rate
large enough to pay for the increased spending necessary to support a war
that was started in our backyard.


You mean voodoo economics still doesn't work?

Of course it works. That's why the recession was so short-lived.

That's funny, I thought if we reduced taxes on those bazillionaires,
they'd all go out and order new yachts or something, and the economy would
boom again...

It is booming.


BTW noticed they're lowering interest rates again? They do that when the
economy is booming, right?

They're doing that to offset spiking energy costs.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
"They" being the Republican-controlled House and Senate.

Thank you for making my point...

How come they are doing so much worse under President Bush?


NOYB wrote:
Bush inherited an economy that saw sizable layoffs and a huge drop in
the stock market in 2000...clearly indicating a shrinking economy.

That's a laugh. The 1990s were the biggest growth in economic history...
the longest sustained business boom in peace time... EVER.

Year 2000 wasn't the 90's. But it was the final year of Clinton's
presidency.



Do you genuinely believe it's all Clinton's fault?

I believe the irrational exhuberance that existed in the markets *was*
Clinton's (and the media's) fault. We were led to believe that everything
was just rosy, that we had no outside threats to our safety (because they
pursued terrorists as criminals instead of nation-state sponsored), and
that economy wasn't showing signs of slowdown. Of course, the data from
2000 all came out in the wash in 2001.

Not to mention the Clinton cap on exec's salaries deductions, and the turn
to stock options as compensation for top employees....That in turn led to an
emphasis on driving up stock prices.

Bush was able to correct part of that through the reduction in the dividend
tax.



If so, do you think the rest of us are stupid enough to believe it?

Yes, I think you're stupid...but that's besides the point.


How come five years of the wonderful Bush Administration *still* hasn't
restored the economy & the stock market to what it was prior to 2000?

The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate accounting
scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and IPO's...and turned to
a safer investment: real estate. Real estate is the new millenium's new
stock market.



When will you start pointing to all the great accomplishments of
President Bush, instead of blaming others for stuff that he seems to have
screwed up?

Besides the short recession that he helped us recover from, and the
democratic elections happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, and even Saudi
Arabia (at least on a local level)?


... Tax revenues are a function of GDP...which was not growing at a
rate large enough to pay for the increased spending necessary to support
a war that was started in our backyard.


You mean voodoo economics still doesn't work?

Of course it works. That's why the recession was so short-lived.

That's funny, I thought if we reduced taxes on those bazillionaires,
they'd all go out and order new yachts or something, and the economy
would boom again...

It is booming.


BTW noticed they're lowering interest rates again? They do that when the
economy is booming, right?

They're doing that to offset spiking energy costs.

If only the liebrals could comprehend Econ 101

Nawww. No domestic terrorist attacks there, right?

Don't forget the embassy bombing.....which is US territory.


And don't forget that those guys are in jail or dead now, too. Unlike
the terrorists who have attacked us on Bush's watch.

IIRC the only ones who are still around are USS Cole bombing planners,
although it's likely that some of our former European allies have them
in custody.

NOYB wrote:
I didn't want to confuse him. He does that well enough on his own.


I guess a complete sentence must confuse you. Go back and read the
original post, NOBBY. See if you can figure it out.

We know Puff Fritzy won't, but then he can't read and is afraid of the
facts. Why should a 'conservative' be scared of the truth?

DSK

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:35:14 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

NOYB wrote:


The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The stock market
is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate accounting scandals
and irrational growth from the dot-coms and IPO's...and turned to a safer
investment: real estate. Real estate is the new millenium's new stock
market.


That's a crock.

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President
George W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during
the past two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't
mention was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus
tenure. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the job growth
Bush trumpeted simply makes up for the jobs lost earlier in his term. In
May when the economy added just 78,000 new jobs, about half of what was
forecast, the number of jobs in the private sector finally recovered to
the level of March 2001. About 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have
disappeared since Bush took office (not counting the 25,000 General
Motors jobs just announced). On the unemployment front, today's 5.1
percent unemployment rate is a far cry from the 30-year record low rate
of 3.9 percent when Bush took office.

Yup, it's taken a lot of work to recover from Clinton's recession, especially
with all the other crap that has taken place.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate
accounting scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and
IPO's...and turned to a safer investment: real estate. Real estate is
the new millenium's new stock market.


That's a crock.

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during the past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus tenure.

Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while he's
been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.